|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 7, 2017 8:06:47 GMT -5
They may claim it, but don't be surprised when they complain that the adjustments made aren't nearly enough..... That is more then likely what will happen! Personally....I have no problem lowering the Bag Limits state wide, never knew anyone that didn't want to see more Deer when hunting. The First step I would think should be getting out of the State wide REDUCTION mode we are in. It is not "statewide". Specific counties are in a "reduction mode" , but others are in a maintain or grow mode.It has always been that way.. It is targeted reductions in areas where the DNR thinks it is needed..
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 7, 2017 8:17:45 GMT -5
Personally I always thought the "reduction mode" was state wide...I guess a person could say any county that doesn't have a late antlerless season is not in a "reduction mode"....I could concur with that!
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 7, 2017 9:33:04 GMT -5
I'm anxious for the DNR to release data showing how many deer each hunter killed last season. I bet the number of hunters who kill 4+ isn't as many as a lot of people think. I also believe that you could cut every county down to two bonus tags and you'd still see a substantial harvest every year. I can kill 4 deer a year without even using a bonus tag.
My opinion is that the license bundle plays a part in all of this, but perhaps not a huge role. You have hunters that buy the bundle just for the fact of not wanting a good bargain to go to waste. Then they feel obligated to fill all the tags, when they normally may not.
Lastly, like it or not, crossbows have increased the harvest. You have guys who normally wouldn't hunt until firearms season who are now in the woods earlier, which gives them both more days afield, as well as a chance to hunt deer before they are heavily pressured. That said, I have no problems with crossbows.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 7, 2017 10:28:02 GMT -5
I'm anxious for the DNR to release data showing how many deer each hunter killed last season. I bet the number of hunters who kill 4+ isn't as many as a lot of people think. I also believe that you could cut every county down to two bonus tags and you'd still see a substantial harvest every year. I can kill 4 deer a year without even using a bonus tag. My opinion is that the license bundle plays a part in all of this, but perhaps not a huge role. You have hunters that buy the bundle just for the fact of not wanting a good bargain to go to waste. Then they feel obligated to fill all the tags, when they normally may not. Lastly, like it or not, crossbows have increased the harvest. You have guys who normally wouldn't hunt until firearms season who are now in the woods earlier, which gives them both more days afield, as well as a chance to hunt deer before they are heavily pressured. That said, I have no problems with crossbows. M4 sometimes you read my mind I swear! If I were guessing I'd guess that less than 2% of hunters took 5 or more deer. The bundle was something I wasn't a fan of personally....but it most likely did as they desired raised the revenue perhaps. Personally speaking I'm an advocate of cashing in on the buck craze, raise the cost of the buck tag substantially and go away from bundle idea. Won't happen though because some would scream bloody murder.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 7, 2017 11:06:50 GMT -5
I'm anxious for the DNR to release data showing how many deer each hunter killed last season. I bet the number of hunters who kill 4+ isn't as many as a lot of people think. I also believe that you could cut every county down to two bonus tags and you'd still see a substantial harvest every year. I can kill 4 deer a year without even using a bonus tag. My opinion is that the license bundle plays a part in all of this, but perhaps not a huge role. You have hunters that buy the bundle just for the fact of not wanting a good bargain to go to waste. Then they feel obligated to fill all the tags, when they normally may not. Lastly, like it or not, crossbows have increased the harvest. You have guys who normally wouldn't hunt until firearms season who are now in the woods earlier, which gives them both more days afield, as well as a chance to hunt deer before they are heavily pressured. That said, I have no problems with crossbows. I agree with most of what you say except the crossbow harvest (imagine that. ) I believe crossbows just transferred the harvest from one season to another..
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 7, 2017 11:33:27 GMT -5
I believe crossbows just transferred the harvest from one season to another. Perhaps, but there had to be some new archer recruitment due to it. I'd need to compare archery harvest percentages before and after full crossbow inclusion to get the bigger picture. Again, Woody, I'm not chastising crossbows at all.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 7, 2017 12:26:58 GMT -5
I believe crossbows just transferred the harvest from one season to another. Perhaps, but there had to be some new archer recruitment due to it. I'd need to compare archery harvest percentages before and after full crossbow inclusion to get the bigger picture. Again, Woody, I'm not chastising crossbows at all. If you look @ the data from 2011 (the last season before prop 2 was implemented) and 2015 (the last year we have data for) you'll see that archery has grown (as a percentage of total harvest) from 22% (21% vertical bow, 1% crossbow in 2011) to 26% (16% vertical bow, 10% crossbow in 2015). Meanwhile percentage of total harvest attributed to firearms dropped from 78% in 2011, to 74% in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 7, 2017 12:36:14 GMT -5
Thanks for the data. The only thing I can recall (I'm at work) is that there was a huge increase in the archery harvest the first year that crossbows were allowed in the early season.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 7, 2017 12:43:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the data. The only thing I can recall (I'm at work) is that there was a huge increase in the archery harvest the first year that crossbows were allowed in the early season. Guess the question is was there a huge decrease the same year in firearm harvests. In the end at most we are probably talking it added a few thousands...less than 1% of harvest if using 120K has harvest average.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 7, 2017 12:51:40 GMT -5
Agreed. I attribute the herd "decline" to a culmination of a lot of factors and not simply on too many bonus antlerless tags. All the little things combined affect the whole.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 7, 2017 13:20:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the data. The only thing I can recall (I'm at work) is that there was a huge increase in the archery harvest the first year that crossbows were allowed in the early season. As a percentage of total harvest archery (vertical and xbow) accounted for 26% and firearms 74% in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 7, 2017 15:09:10 GMT -5
Agreed. I attribute the herd "decline" to a culmination of a lot of factors and not simply on too many bonus antlerless tags. All the little things combined affect the whole. With a huge majority of the deer hunters killing 0 to 4 deer a year "bonus tags" are meaningless. A deer hunetrb could still kill 2 with a bow, 1 with a gun and 1 with a muzzleloader. In addition, the bundle has pretty well replaced the bonus tags.. Since the bundle has been in effect the numbers of bonus tag sales have dropped pretty drastically.
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Mar 7, 2017 15:10:57 GMT -5
I'm anxious for the DNR to release data showing how many deer each hunter killed last season. I bet the number of hunters who kill 4+ isn't as many as a lot of people think. I also believe that you could cut every county down to two bonus tags and you'd still see a substantial harvest every year. I can kill 4 deer a year without even using a bonus tag. My opinion is that the license bundle plays a part in all of this, but perhaps not a huge role. You have hunters that buy the bundle just for the fact of not wanting a good bargain to go to waste. Then they feel obligated to fill all the tags, when they normally may not. Lastly, like it or not, crossbows have increased the harvest. You have guys who normally wouldn't hunt until firearms season who are now in the woods earlier, which gives them both more days afield, as well as a chance to hunt deer before they are heavily pressured. That said, I have no problems with crossbows. Ditto on the bundle. I have said the exact same thing myself before. Made it a little worse making one of them either sex. Should have just made a pricier antlered tag by itself good for all seasons or bundled with one antlerless. If that was not enough, have at purchasing another antlerless by all means, but not starting off with three in the bundle.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 7, 2017 15:12:59 GMT -5
Thanks for the data. The only thing I can recall (I'm at work) is that there was a huge increase in the archery harvest the first year that crossbows were allowed in the early season. As a percentage of total harvest archery (vertical and xbow) accounted for 26% and firearms 74% in 2012. Page 10 - www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-2015-Deer-Harvest-Report.pdf
|
|
|
Post by bonecollector23 on Mar 7, 2017 15:52:01 GMT -5
I'm anxious for the DNR to release data showing how many deer each hunter killed last season. I bet the number of hunters who kill 4+ isn't as many as a lot of people think. I also believe that you could cut every county down to two bonus tags and you'd still see a substantial harvest every year. I can kill 4 deer a year without even using a bonus tag. My opinion is that the license bundle plays a part in all of this, but perhaps not a huge role. You have hunters that buy the bundle just for the fact of not wanting a good bargain to go to waste. Then they feel obligated to fill all the tags, when they normally may not. Lastly, like it or not, crossbows have increased the harvest. You have guys who normally wouldn't hunt until firearms season who are now in the woods earlier, which gives them both more days afield, as well as a chance to hunt deer before they are heavily pressured. That said, I have no problems with crossbows. M4 sometimes you read my mind I swear! If I were guessing I'd guess that less than 2% of hunters took 5 or more deer. The bundle was something I wasn't a fan of personally....but it most likely did as they desired raised the revenue perhaps. Personally speaking I'm an advocate of cashing in on the buck craze, raise the cost of the buck tag substantially and go away from bundle idea. Won't happen though because some would scream bloody murder. 9% of the hunters in the deer hunting contest killed 4 or more deer this year. I would say you are low on your percentage of hunters that use the bundle tag plus more each year. Most of you are being a little harsh toward these county committees. At least these groups are trying to improve habitat and review regulations in order to improve the health of our deer herd. I agree that some areas of the state need to remain in the reduction program but my county needs to cut back the quotas. We are allowed 8 does when the surrounding counties allow 4. I believe that they base these quotas off of the wrong variables (accidents, depredation tag applications, etc.) Something has to change. I am glad someone is trying to do something. It would be nice if more hunters would support the movement to help to promote a healthier deer herd rather than sit back and complain.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 7, 2017 15:56:04 GMT -5
Omegahunter
If the DNR had offered just an antlered tag good for all seasons...that would be the only tag they would sell to many hunters and based on the revenue the bundle is bringing in, I don't see that happening.
One thing I would love to see is data on how many tags that are sold as a bundle go unfilled every season.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 7, 2017 15:59:46 GMT -5
bonecollector23
If you are speaking of the IWDHM, how are they trying to improve habitat and/or the health of the deer herd?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 7, 2017 16:00:50 GMT -5
Explain how this group IWDHM is trying to improve Habitat?
And how do you know know that others besides this group are not working to improve anything ?
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 7, 2017 16:22:18 GMT -5
M4 sometimes you read my mind I swear! If I were guessing I'd guess that less than 2% of hunters took 5 or more deer. The bundle was something I wasn't a fan of personally....but it most likely did as they desired raised the revenue perhaps. Personally speaking I'm an advocate of cashing in on the buck craze, raise the cost of the buck tag substantially and go away from bundle idea. Won't happen though because some would scream bloody murder. 9% of the hunters in the deer hunting contest killed 4 or more deer this year. I would say you are low on your percentage of hunters that use the bundle tag plus more each year. Most of you are being a little harsh toward these county committees. At least these groups are trying to improve habitat and review regulations in order to improve the health of our deer herd. I agree that some areas of the state need to remain in the reduction program but my county needs to cut back the quotas. We are allowed 8 does when the surrounding counties allow 4. I believe that they base these quotas off of the wrong variables (accidents, depredation tag applications, etc.) Something has to change. I am glad someone is trying to do something. It would be nice if more hunters would support the movement to help to promote a healthier deer herd rather than sit back and complain. I would say a hunting forum will "typically" have more successful hunters than the general population. You very well may be right in me being low, but I'd bet my bottom dollar the 9% represented here is overstating and not an example of the overall. Don't discuss the need of habitat enhancements...that is one of the very factors I used to bring up and they banned me from their pages. I have continually expressed my opinions to the DNR when asked and even when not asked. I've never felt my voice was unheard personally but that is not the case for some out there. My localized herds are doing okay if not well...go 2 miles West or even ask a guy I share a property with though and his opinion will be drastically different...doesn't disqualify either of us, just proves more than an opinion is needed to derive true figures or get a finger on the specific localized herd. Also I am not going to bring specifics up here as not the place, but this group has done/said things directly specifically at myself which were childish/unprofessional. I will not be able to defend or support a group which has done so. Funny thing is despite this I have befriended some of them, some of their past members in "leadership" and even let people know the group may very well represent everything they feel about the state of the deer in Indiana. CDAC's to me are a great concept, I also don't question anyone's love and desire for better deer hunting...but in the end unless a true unbias approach is taken at meetings, multiple entities are present on the boards and at minimum 50% of hunters have a presence it is tough to accept the voices of a few for the voices of an entire county. Personally I love the idea of them though, and if my time ever allows it is something which I'd love to emulate on a smaller scale just around my properties and their localized herds where area hunters meet, discuss and share thoughts on what the deer herd is looking like, maybe make decisions amongst ourselves as to goals, harvest ideas (obviously never exceeding legal limits) and such...but we are talking hunters in a 500-800 acre area not an entire county. In the end Bone, any hunter that feels their voice isn't being heard or there is not a way to express their concerns with the DNR should look into ways their voice can be heard. Not take my word for it or anyone else as to the proper channel for them. I've sent emails, answered surveys and partake in great discussions with hunters on forums, social media and through my consulting job as much as I can. I care deeply about the future of our herd, not just for myself selfishly but in the hopes to take my kids (Lord willing) out someday. In closing I would like to ask a question, your last line stated "It would be nice if more hunters would support the movement to help to promote a healthier deer herd rather than sit back and complain." What is your definition of healthier? Or a healthy deer herd? Is it possible the herd is healthy in areas but guys/gals/hunters simply wish they'd see more? (I 100% admit there is no doubt areas which could have lower quotas, just fyi)
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 7, 2017 16:23:28 GMT -5
Omegahunter If the DNR had offered just an antlered tag good for all seasons...that would be the only tag they would sell to many hunters and based on the revenue the bundle is bringing in, I don't see that happening. One thing I would love to see is data on how many tags that are sold as a bundle go unfilled every season. Make the antler tag the same as the bundle. Solved
|
|